Revocation or alteration of rights reliquished.

This appeal under section 84 (3) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (II of 1927) arises under the following circumstances. The appellant before us, M.A. Ramaswami Thevar, claiming to be a legatee under a will executed by one Paragnana Desika Swamiar applied to the lower Court under section 84 (2) of the said Act to declare that he is the hereditary trustee of two temples and a mutt in Thennangudi village, Tanjore district. The learned District Judge of West Tanjore, after elaborate discussion of the evidence let in, came to the conclusion that the appellant has no such right and dismissed his application. Hence this appeal.

One Paragnana Desika Swamiar, an ascetic belonging to the Saivite sect,, founded two temples, one for Sri Baladandayuthapani and another for Vinayaka. There was also a mutt in which he was living and looking after the worship in the temples. For the purpose of defraying the expenses for neivedyam, deeparadhana and other ceremonies not only Paragnana Desika Swamiar endowed properties but he obtained several items of properties from pious and religious-minded Hindus, belonging to the same persuasion and thereby augmented the properties belonging to the temples. On 9th February, 1934, under Exhibit B-1, he executed a trust deed appointing five persons as trustees for the mutt as well as the temples. The document recites the history of the institutions and the properties belonging to them and how the five persons shall attend to the charities and other matters relating to the mutt and temples thereafter. On 15th May, 1934, he sent a notice Exhibit A-25 to the five trustees alleging that they did not conduct themselves in the manner provided in the trust deed and therefore should no longer function as trustees. This also had the result of cancelling the trust-deed, Exhibit B.1. Thereafter, on 15th May, 1934, he appointed the present second respondent as trustee of the properties. He was not satisfied with the way in which the matters were proceeding and therefore he requested the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments to take over the administration of the temple. On 3rd August, 1935, under Exhibit A-29 the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, on the application by Paragnana Desika Swamiar, in the matter of Sri Dandayuthapaniswami temple and other institutions passed an order holding that the temples were public temples within the definition of the term in clause (12) of section 9 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act and that the Act applied to its endowments. There was a further direction that the then trustee, namely, Paragnana Desika Swamiar, was given the liberty to provide for the line of succession to the office of trustee in the temple. The result of this was that the founder of these institutions was given the right to nominate any successor whom he wanted. By Exhibit B-3, on 10th February, 1936, Paragnana Desika Swamiar appointed another trustee, one Avidaiservaikarar; but it is common ground that he did not function as trustee. On 16th June, 1939, under Exhibit A-26, he appointed the present second respondent as an agent and asked the Tanjore Circle Devasthanam Committee to appoint the second respondent as the trustee. An application was also made by the second respondent which is marked as Exhibit A-2 7. The Devasthanam Committee recognised the second respondent’s claim and appointed him as a trustee. Somehow or other matters did not go on smoothly and therefore the Swamiar, on 26th September, 1945, under Exhibit A-24, executed a will by which he nominated the present appellant as the trustee for the temple. In that document it is stated that the properties which formed the subject-matter of the settlement belonged to him absolutely with complete rights and that the temples were built by him. Therefore in addition to appointing the present appellant as trustee, he vested the entire rights in the temple and in the properties on the appellant. It is on the basis o